Mvumvu and Others v Minister of Transport and Another (CCT 67/10) [2011] ZACC 1; 2011 (2) SA 473 (CC) ; 2011 (5) BCLR 488 (CC) (17 January 2011)

Mvumvu and Others v Minister of Transport and Another (CCT 67/10) [2011] ZACC 1; 2011 (2) SA 473 (CC) ; 2011 (5) BCLR 488 (CC) (17 January 2011)

Section 18 of the Road Accident Fund Act, as it stood before 1 August 2008, imposed a cap on compensation for certain categories of victims, which disproportionately affected poor black people who rely on public transport. This created indirect discrimination on the basis of race, a listed ground under section 9(3) of the Constitution, and was manifestly unfair. The respondents failed to justify the discrimination as reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. The impugned provisions were therefore inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. However, unlimited retrospective invalidity would have severe budgetary implications for the Road Accident Fund and threaten...

Citation
[2011] ZACC 1
Parties
Applicant: Anele Mvumvu; Applicant: Louise Pedro; Applicant: Bianca Smith; Respondent: Minister for Transport; Respondent: Road Accident Fund
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 January 2011
Case Number
CCT 67/10
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Challenge / Confirmation of High Court Declaration of Invalidity and Leave to Appeal on Remedy
Outcome
Declaration of constitutional invalidity of sections 18(1)(a)(i), 18(1)(b), and 18(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act as they read before 1 August 2008, suspended for 18 months to allow Parliament to cure the defect. Costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
Jafta, Ngcobo, Moseneke, Brand, Cameron, Froneman, Khampepe, Mogoeng, Nkabinde, Skweyiya
Legal Topics
Equality Clause, Unfair Discrimination, Road Accident Fund Act, Retrospective Invalidity, Just and Equitable Remedy, Social Security Legislation
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Delict Equality Clause Unfair Discrimination Road Accident Fund Act Retrospective Invalidity Just and Equitable Remedy +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anele Mvumvu

Applicant

Louise Pedro

Applicant

Bianca Smith

Applicant

Minister for Transport

Respondent

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Challenge / Confirmation of High Court Declaration of Invalidity and Leave to Appeal on Remedy

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does section 18 of the Road Accident Fund Act, as it stood before 1 August 2008, violate the right to equality under section 9 of the Constitution?
  2. 2 Is the discrimination created by the compensation cap in section 18 unfair and unjustifiable?
  3. 3 What is the appropriate remedy following a declaration of constitutional invalidity of the impugned provisions?

Ratio Decidendi

Section 18 of the Road Accident Fund Act, as it stood before 1 August 2008, imposed a cap on compensation for certain categories of victims, which disproportionately affected poor black people who rely on public transport. This created indirect discrimination on the basis of race, a listed ground under section 9(3) of the Constitution, and was manifestly unfair. The respondents failed to justify the discrimination as reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society. The impugned provisions were therefore inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid. However, unlimited retrospective invalidity would have severe budgetary implications for the Road Accident Fund and threaten...

Court Disposition

Declaration of constitutional invalidity of sections 18(1)(a)(i), 18(1)(b), and 18(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act as they read before 1 August 2008, suspended for 18 months to allow Parliament to cure the defect. Costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • It is declared that sections 18(1)(a)(i), 18(1)(b), and 18(2) of the Road Accident Fund Act 56 of 1996, as they read before 1 August 2008, are inconsistent with the Constitution and invalid.
  • The declaration of invalidity is suspended for 18 months from the date of this order to enable Parliament to cure the defect.